Halifax Active Transportation

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by fatscat

Yeah, it sure is fun being stuck in a metal box because traffic is so gnarly. Only going to get worse as the population increases. What's your solution there?

Self driving cars going to save you? Sorry, L5 is a long ways away and what we will get with self driving cars is likely more akin to a taxi service (the premium version for those who don't want to take a bus)

Is your solution to widen roads? We know that doesn't work. Induced demand and so on.

What if we took more people off the roads? Wait, maybe that can work! More buses and alternative forms of transport!

Many people actually *do not* want to commute in a vehicle. It sucks, it's a waste of time, and most only do it because there are no other options.

I don't understand why you nuts go into these active transportation threads to troll. Go do something productive.

So no rebuttal then?
OK Here is where I see the Halifax region in the next 50 years. There will be a Tunnel under Halifax Harbour to connect the 111 to downtown Halifax. What travels in that Tunnel will NOT be commercial Trucks because by that time the Container ports will be on the Dartmouth Side as World wide economic activity takes off with the Rise of India and China owning Eastern Russia if Russia survives. The Canadian Navy will be much larger than it is now and our Allies will demand that a bridge not hem in the RCN facilities.

The Metro Halifax population will be almost 750-800 thousand and the Peninsula will have the same opportunities and constraints as Manhattan. Less rich but probably far safer. The best transportation options in the future will be underground. Period. Ferries will move lots of folks but are busier on Holidays for recreational reasons than regular business. The City should plan to copy the old Tram routes that existed in the 1940's. Underground.

The pendulum in Canadian politics will swing back to fiscal prudence so the Trudeau spending on every left handed short guy with purple hair is coming to a close and immigrant inclusion will need more investment. Housing, Transit, educational infrastructure and the new Infirmary should be doubled in planning. The extra Hospital space built now should be used for long term care until demographics says good bye to the Boomers ( me included).

Cycling infrastructure is a nice to have but the future population will out pace the space and resources demanded of the cycling coalition. As people get richer they will buy Cars. Probably EV's but who knows ?

[bartekci]

It's amazing that around the globe, cyclists are fighting for a literal metre (and a bit) of space and when they ask for that, they are bulldozed by crackpot ideas in an effort to do *anything but* install cycling infrastructure.

I'm not going to waste my time with a rebuttal. I just want you to know that all I (and many cyclists) want is a way to get somewhere safely. To work, to school with their kids, etc. I'm done here.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

There will be a Tunnel under Halifax Harbour to connect the 111 to downtown Halifax. What travels in that Tunnel will NOT be commercial Trucks because by that time the Container ports will be on the Dartmouth Side

Putting container terminals on the Dartmouth side has always been a tantalizing idea and seems to make a lot of sense on its face. But what I've never heard explained satisfactorily is where the rail line in and out of it will be established. We certainly won't be running double-stacked container trains through downtown Dartmouth, but when you start to think of practical alternative locations for a railroad, there appear to be none. I don't know how we get around that - but I'm all for hearing theories.

The Canadian Navy will be much larger than it is now and our Allies will demand that a bridge not hem in the RCN facilities.

I seriously doubt that the RCN will be much bigger, if at all, in 50 years, but that's another debate for another time. But exactly how does a bridge "hem in" the navy? It's not as if the navy has much of an air draft problem.

Also, apologies for diving into this particular topic, It's not exactly about active transportation and is probably best discussed on another thread.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Jesus. Another car vs bicycle "debate".

A couple quick facts:
The bicycle was apparently invented in 1817 (by quick internet search), which was also apparently referred to as the "Regency era" (also by quick internet search), so if we are using the era that something was invented to describe it, the bicycle is Regency era transportation. Not that this is relevant to anything. It would be like saying we shouldn't be using forks to eat with because they are too outdated (invented 4th century AD, apparently, though I wasn't there to be able to say for sure).

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

I seriously doubt that the RCN will be much bigger, if at all, in 50 years, but that's another debate for another time. But exactly how does a bridge "hem in" the navy? It's not as if the navy has much of an air draft problem.

Also, apologies for diving into this particular topic, It's probably best discussed on another thread,.

I realize this is off topic too, but, a bridge could impede access to the harbour by an aircraft carrier.

Now, I don't believe Canada will ever again have a full fledged aircraft carrier, but a Mistral class amphibious assault ship might be possible. They have a flight deck for helicopters and possibly STOL (which can include modified f-35 jet fighters).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

See that's the problem. You are trying to justify a pre determined position.
Quite clearly the majority and I mean VAST majority of the travelling public have made their choice to be safe, warm, encased in a metal box that is probably air conditioned so the end journey is less sweaty. I get it , the cyclist lobby have been very successful with virtue arguments related to climate, exercise and urban feel good niceties. The people however have voted with their wallets to buy cars to satisfy THEIR interests not public virtues.

That's obviously non-sense. When people in the HRM were polled about cycling the majority said they were "interested but concerned" meaning that they didn't feel safe given the current conditions and lack of infrastructure. It's also something I hear non-stop when I talk about it to people in my daily life. When you design a society around a particular technology and make it much easier to use that than alternatives, of course that's what most people end up using. Most people feel they have no choice but to drive because that's the only practical option to get where they're going in a safe and timely manner. The idea that because people are currently doing something that it's just because it's what they most want to do and don't want any alternative just isn't valid.


https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default/fil...mittees/170928tscPresentationItem111.pdf

So no, it is indeed you who are trying to justify a pre-determined position. That's obvious
when you use terms like "virtue arguments" and "feel good niceties". The health and well-being benefits of incorporating exercise into one's daily life have long been medically established. So is the fact that cycling causes fewer emissions compared to cars including EVs. These are tangible, utilitarian facts regardless of how anyone "feels" about them.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I realize this is off topic too, but, a bridge could impede access to the harbour by an aircraft carrier.

USN CVNs (the biggest of all such beasts) might have a problem but don't tie up alongside and already anchor south of where this (existing only in fantasy) bridge would be anyway.

[LikesBikes]

Wow, anti-bike people sure are easy to trigger.

I don't get how one can be simultaneously in favour of more density and also so vehemently anti-bike. It's one thing if you hate cities and all things urban but do anti-bike people on here want more traffic, pollution, and accidents? The price of developing a protected bike lane is infinitesimal compared to what is spent on roads and the land use impact is often minimal (eg losing a few parking spaces). Bang for your buck it's probably one of the best ways to reduce congestion, improve urban life and maintain our urban growth (part of the reason people move to the peninsula is cause you don't need a car).

[LikesBikes]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Last I heard Almon will be getting protected bike lanes from Windsor - Agricola. I believe it will be done as Richmond Yards reopens their adjacent sidewalks. Some of the new renderings show the cycling facility out front. Queen's Marque did the same approach with installing their protected lanes before the rest of Lower Water Street. Halifax will likely try to time the rest of the construction with when the main tower construction is complete in 2023.

Thanks for the info. It will be such an important connection once built.

[LikesBikes]

Interesting survey posted by Nouvellecosse. I bet if it was just looking at people in the North and West End (where the bike improvements are actually being made) the percentage of people would in the interested but concerned category would be even higher. This area could so easily be a great place for people of all ages to bike but the lack of infrastructure currently makes it unsafe for all but the experienced cyclists.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LikesBikes

Wow, anti-bike people sure are easy to trigger.

I don't get how one can be simultaneously in favour of more density and also so vehemently anti-bike. It's one thing if you hate cities and all things urban but do anti-bike people on here want more traffic, pollution, and accidents? The price of developing a protected bike lane is infinitesimal compared to what is spent on roads and the land use impact is often minimal (eg losing a few parking spaces). Bang for your buck it's probably one of the best ways to reduce congestion, improve urban life and maintain our urban growth (part of the reason people move to the peninsula is cause you don't need a car).

Part of the problem, as I see it, is the "us vs them" mentality. Your first sentence displays it, labelling anybody who isn't 'rah-rah' over cycling on city streets as "anti-bike". This mentality is happening all over society these days, and it is not productive.

There are a group of people who aren't "anti-bike", but do look at the situation pragmatically. They see infrastructure as a finite resource and want to see it used most efficiently. They also see a fraction (~25%?) of road surfaces that have bicycle infrastructure installed being used by very few cyclists (by anecdotal observations) relative to the number of cars, motorcycles, buses, trucks that compete for the same space and wonder whether this is the best use of the infrastructure. This makes it more difficult and less efficient for the majority who use those methods (and, subsequently has a negative effect on climate change by causing motor vehicles to operate less efficiently... i.e. idling in traffic jams).

I'm not "anti-bike" by any sense of the term, and I have been supportive of bicycle infrastructure from the start, but lately I have wondered whether it's the best use of our resources to transport people in an efficient manner. After all this time I still see very few cyclists using the infrastructure and am starting to wonder whether "build it and they will come" is actually a realistic expectation.

IMHO, our city leaders have failed us in not planning for and providing an efficient transit system (i.e. combination of buses, trains, underground, etc.), and have jumped upon the popularity wagon of wanting to be viewed as being trend-setters, while ignoring the needs of the majority of the citizens. Again, IMHO, you take care of the core travellers first with excellent transit, which would naturally reduce car traffic, then you can effectively invest in great, separated, bicycle infrastructure (rather than simple painted lines that disappear in the rain and snow, and eventually wear off leaving unfamiliar people wondering what to do).

Tired of the "anti-bike" label, and the dumbed-down tribalism that seems to completely envelop this entire topic.

[MonctonRad]

Excellent post!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

After all this time I still see very few cyclists using the infrastructure and am starting to wonder whether "build it and they will come" is actually a realistic expectation.

I think two things here:

1. There actually are a fair number of cyclists, but they are often less visible than motorists--smaller, and often swifter when moving through congested areas. We do have data indicated that in some parts of the peninsula, more than 10 percent of commuting is by bike.

2. The infrastructure we have remains fairly paltry and disconnected, and nowhere near extensive enough or safe enough to entice a lot of people who would like to bike but aren't comfortable doing so. "Build it and they will come" hasn't been disproven because, honestly, we've built very little--a handful of separated lanes that mostly don't connect to one another and cover little ground.

Let's see what happens when the full network as envisioned in the Integrated Mobility Plan is built--really a bare minimum for a functional city-centre system.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I think two things here:

1. There actually are a fair number of cyclists, but they are often less visible than motorists--smaller, and often swifter when moving through congested areas. We do have data indicated that in some parts of the peninsula, more than 10 percent of commuting is by bike.

2. The infrastructure we have remains fairly paltry and disconnected, and nowhere near extensive enough or safe enough to entice a lot of people who would like to bike but aren't comfortable doing so. "Build it and they will come" hasn't been disproven because, honestly, we've built very little--a handful of separated lanes that mostly don't connect to one another and cover little ground.

Let's see what happens when the full network as envisioned in the Integrated Mobility Plan is built--really a bare minimum for a functional city-centre system.

Fair points.

I'm willing to wait and see, but I was hoping that there would be stronger indications that people were intending to make major changes to support the investment by the city. As I said, anecdotally I haven't seen a lot of bicycle traffic, but maybe I just haven't been in the right place at the right time... anecdotes are just stories, not data.

We'll see, but geez it would be nice if we didn't have to treat this like some kind of crusade, with each side going to battle. Like nobody discusses LRT and says things like "you're anti-transit" if you don't agree with a particular transit plan. It seems a little silly, and non-productive.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Part of the problem, as I see it, is the "us vs them" mentality. Your first sentence displays it, labelling anybody who isn't 'rah-rah' over cycling on city streets as "anti-bike". This mentality is happening all over society these days, and it is not productive.

There are a group of people who aren't "anti-bike", but do look at the situation pragmatically. They see infrastructure as a finite resource and want to see it used most efficiently. They also see a fraction (~25%?) of road surfaces that have bicycle infrastructure installed being used by very few cyclists (by anecdotal observations) relative to the number of cars, motorcycles, buses, trucks that compete for the same space and wonder whether this is the best use of the infrastructure. This makes it more difficult and less efficient for the majority who use those methods (and, subsequently has a negative effect on climate change by causing motor vehicles to operate less efficiently... i.e. idling in traffic jams).



I'm not "anti-bike" by any sense of the term, and I have been supportive of bicycle infrastructure from the start, but lately I have wondered whether it's the best use of our resources to transport people in an efficient manner. After all this time I still see very few cyclists using the infrastructure and am starting to wonder whether "build it and they will come" is actually a realistic expectation.

IMHO, our city leaders have failed us in not planning for and providing an efficient transit system (i.e. combination of buses, trains, underground, etc.), and have jumped upon the popularity wagon of wanting to be viewed as being trend-setters, while ignoring the needs of the majority of the citizens. Again, IMHO, you take care of the core travellers first with excellent transit, which would naturally reduce car traffic, then you can effectively invest in great, separated, bicycle infrastructure (rather than simple painted lines that disappear in the rain and snow, and eventually wear off leaving unfamiliar people wondering what to do).

Tired of the "anti-bike" label, and the dumbed-down tribalism that seems to completely envelop this entire topic.

What he said!!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Part of the problem, as I see it, is the "us vs them" mentality. Your first sentence displays it, labelling anybody who isn't 'rah-rah' over cycling on city streets as "anti-bike". This mentality is happening all over society these days, and it is not productive.

There are a group of people who aren't "anti-bike", but do look at the situation pragmatically. They see infrastructure as a finite resource and want to see it used most efficiently. They also see a fraction (~25%?) of road surfaces that have bicycle infrastructure installed being used by very few cyclists (by anecdotal observations) relative to the number of cars, motorcycles, buses, trucks that compete for the same space and wonder whether this is the best use of the infrastructure. This makes it more difficult and less efficient for the majority who use those methods (and, subsequently has a negative effect on climate change by causing motor vehicles to operate less efficiently... i.e. idling in traffic jams).

I'm not "anti-bike" by any sense of the term, and I have been supportive of bicycle infrastructure from the start, but lately I have wondered whether it's the best use of our resources to transport people in an efficient manner. After all this time I still see very few cyclists using the infrastructure and am starting to wonder whether "build it and they will come" is actually a realistic expectation.

As someone who has expressed similar views on the subject for years, I can only agree.

The poll referenced above is laughable, or would be if it wasn't so sad in having our esteemed municipal council use it as justification for the things they have wasted millions of tax dollars on to date with plans to double down in the years to come, while ignoring the remaining 99% of people trying to move into and through the city, and making things worse for them.

It is important to remember the essential point in all of this: cycling will never be a major or viable way for most people to get around. Oh, some young or "progressive" greenies will try it, but the moment the weather is bad or they need to haul kids or cargo, or once they start experiencing the effects of age or illness, it will stay in the shed, hanging on the wall where it seems most bikes congregate. Unfortunately HRM Council has ignored the street and road network except for making it worse, and the transit system has proven to be an unfixable problem for this bunch and for the army of inept staff we pay so well. Council has not only abdicated their responsibility to provide services to those whose tax dollars they so enjoy spending, but has chosen to make things worse for almost all of them.

As I see more and more streets made worse by the addition of bike lanes that do not get used, justified by a "build it and they will come" mentality, it seems clear that they are not coming. But I find myself wondering more how it has not occurred to those responsible at HRM what they have done. Could we see lawsuits in future years from cyclists injured or from families of those losing their lives by HRM's encouraging them to use such an inherently dangerous and risky form of transportation? Why would they encourage citizens to mix with traffic when the main complaint from cyclists is always how dangerous that is? A plastic shell on the cranium is not going to do much in an argument between a cyclist and a heavy truck. A plastic post on a street is not going to provide much protection when something goes wrong. When a well-placed stone on a bike lane can result in a cyclist toppling in front of a vehicle on must wonder why HRM is encouraging putting these people in harm's way.

The entire "active transportation" mindset - not unique to HRM, sadly - has been an utter boondoggle everywhere it has been tried in North America, a foolish scheme that our municipal leaders have bought into hook, line and sinker as an alternative to providing useful transportation options for the vast majority of taxpayers. This is not Belgium or the Netherlands, nor will it ever be. Fortunately from what I see online citizens are finally starting to sit up and take notice of the absurd things that Council has done so far and plans on doing in the future. Council MUST be replaced in the next election to stop further waste and degradation of the transportation network by going further down this bike path.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

cycling will never be a major or viable way for most people to get around. Oh, some young or "progressive" greenies will try it, but the moment the weather is bad or they need to haul kids or cargo, or once they start experiencing the effects of age or illness, it will stay in the shed, hanging on the wall where it seems most bikes congregate.

The primary way my I get my two-year-old around town for short/medium trips is bike, and it will be until late fall. He loves it; way more to see and experience than in a car, and trips are almost as quick (on the peninsula). In inclement weather, or when the weather gets truly cold, we’ll switch to bus/car. But nine of 12 months it’s largely bike. (And I still bike myself those other three months.)

One of my most important priorities, transportation-wise, is to continue building our safe cycling infrastructure so that A: those bike trips with my son are safer for both of us (there are places I feel confident cycling alone that I wouldn’t take him) and b: so that when he’s older, my child will be able to navigate the streets of his own neighbourhood on foot and by bike more safely than kids today can. The last thing I want is for him to grow up in the middle of a city centre, yet find every inch of road space around him dedicated to maximizing car throughput. That’s not anti-driver; I drive too. But in a crowded city centre, the ability of drivers to zoom around as efficiently (or as is often the case, as recklessly) as possible should be subservient to safety, comfort and neighbourhood quality of life.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

The primary way my I get my two-year-old around town for short/medium trips is bike, and it will be until late fall. He loves it; way more to see and experience than in a car, and trips are almost as quick (on the peninsula). In inclement weather, or when the weather gets truly cold, we’ll switch to bus/car. But nine of 12 months it’s largely bike. (And I still bike myself those other three months.)

One of my most important priorities, transportation-wise, is to continue building our safe cycling infrastructure so that A: those bike trips with my son are safer for both of us (there are places I feel confident cycling alone that I wouldn’t take him) and b: so that when he’s older, my child will be able to navigate the streets of his own neighbourhood on foot and by bike more safely than kids today can. The last thing I want is for him to grow up in the middle of a city centre, yet find every inch of road space around him dedicated to maximizing car throughput. That’s not anti-driver; I drive too. But in a crowded city centre, the ability of drivers to zoom around as efficiently (or as is often the case, as recklessly) as possible should be subservient to safety, comfort and neighbourhood quality of life.

I have not seen any method of hauling a 2 year-old around on a bike that I would consider "safe". Some of them seem rather terrifying, actually.

In reality, I see far more cyclists zooming around recklessly, blowing through intersections, and ignoring the rules of the road, than I do vehicles. It seems impossible for cyclists to respect the code of the road. We live in a city, and there are certain things regarding traffic volume and "quality of life" things that come with that for good or bad. I know there are retirement villages in warmer climes where the main form of transportation is by electric golf cart on pathways, but I would not choose that for me and I don't think most people would either. Some neighborhood residents seem to think their neighborhood should be like that though, which is absurd on its face.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I have not seen any method of hauling a 2 year-old around on a bike that I would consider "safe". Some of them seem rather terrifying, actually.

In reality, I see far more cyclists zooming around recklessly, blowing through intersections, and ignoring the rules of the road, than I do vehicles. It seems impossible for cyclists to respect the code of the road. We live in a city, and there are certain things regarding traffic volume and "quality of life" things that come with that for good or bad. I know there are retirement villages in warmer climes where the main form of transportation is by electric golf cart on pathways, but I would not choose that for me and I don't think most people would either. Some neighborhood residents seem to think their neighborhood should be like that though, which is absurd on its face.

Actually I just want streets where people aren’t peeling around at 50 km/hr metres away from people’s front doors and parks/sidewalks, and if they can’t be trusted with the responsibility to drive safely for the environment they’re in, we’ll have to put physical infrastructure in place to ensure. (That’s not a new idea; that’s what speed bumps are, after all.)

Anyway, Keith, it’s obvious from your comments that you think apportioning any space to anything but cars is some kind of nefarious plot to congest the city for the benefit of the 1%, or something, so there’s no point discussing it.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

... a fraction (~25%?) of road surfaces that have bicycle infrastructure installed being used by very few cyclists (by anecdotal observations) relative to the number of cars, motorcycles, buses, trucks that compete for the same space and wonder whether this is the best use of the infrastructure. ...

It may also depend on the location. I am not a bicyclist, but walk up/down Isleville most work days between Young St and Almon St. Anecdotally, I've noticed many more bikes on that street since the changes to make it more "bike friendly." It might be confirmation bias, because I've really only started looking for bikes as a response to the changes that were made. Whatever the case, I would say that there are more bikes than I would have expected.